OK, babysteps. For the sake of my point I will agree that the USA had a more difficult group this time. The rankings will probably confirm but on paper, agreed.

In 2010, Italy drew Paraguay, Slovakia and New Zealand.
In 2014, Italy drew Uruguay, England and Costa Rica.

Their 2014 group was, without a shadow of a doubt, more difficult.

In 2010, they finished bottom of the easier group.
In 2014, they finished third. In both tournaments eliminated at the same stage.
So using your argument, Italy have made progress. Who in their right mind would actually claim that?

I could demolish the argument more easily by saying the luck of the draw has no impact, but the above suffices.

I suspect there is little doubt that the US team attracts greater attention across the media than the others you mention, regardless of where the media are based.

I defer to your greater knowledge of all media across all platforms in all countries. I haven't personally noticed any bias but I tend to read from neutral sources where possible (or as close to neutral as possible). I've seen USA being praised for their performances and I agree with that. I thought they performed very well.

So you think Costa Rica and Algeria have had just the right amount of praise but that USA have had more than they deserve, which is patronising to them as well as being unfair on others? And that USA haven't really progressed? Is that your position?

I am not bothered what praise they have received. The issue is with assertions that the US have "made progress" when the evidence for them having done so is far less obvious than is true of other countries.

I don't really need any wider media knowledge to make the assertion that the fortunes of the US national side carry greater worldwide interest than that of Algeria or Costa Rica.

Why have you mentioned bias?

Quality of opposition has no bearing on judging how well a country has performed in a tournament?

Fair enough - I shan't argue any further with that logic of yours.

Not my logic, all I have done is exposed the flaws in your argument as it seems to rest solely on the strength of your opponents.

Would you say Italy have improved?

I would say strength of opponents, results and even style of play are all factors (bare results often don't tell the full story).

And shadout claims in his post without qualification, that strength of opponents is the only factor. It is his/her claim, not mine, and I have demonstrated quite clearly why he/she is wrong to make it.

Because it's a big part of media reporting, whether it's the British media, Russian media, French media or whomever. Many articles you read will have an obvious bias - i.e. Lawrenson's piece on Italian players not being good enough to get in the England team. No one unbiased could come out with that as it's ridiculous. As such I try to ignore obviously blinkered opinions that tabloids rush to express to create hype.

I was just stating that I hadn't noticed any huge bias in the reports I'd read about the USA team which tended to be "USA did well" and "Howard was brilliant" or "Dempsey still looks a good player" or "this USA team have a great spirit around them" or "Klinsmann has created a strong team ethic". I agree with all those statements.

Progress means different things to different people. To a TV person it might mean public interest which they determine by viewing figures. To a youth coach it might mean quality of player coming through at his level. To a fan it might be strength of performance that they have watched. To a statistician it might be percentage of possession and shots on goal, or maybe just the basic fact of how far the national team got.

I take the holistic view.

Fair enough. I suppose the Brazil legacy has been built on how many of a population watch their national side in action.

when you are in the position that football is in the US , having to compete with a number of well established sports, then attracting fans is important tho for the future of the sport

I have reservations whether it will actually matter much due to how entrenched the big sports are but publicity is never a bad thing for the sport

For about the umpteenth time, I don't disagree.

I have made a fairly simple point, that this USA team is getting significant credit and recognition for doing not a lot more than what they typically do at World Cups.

The national team will still be the national team whether watched by 10,000 or 50 million people.

Have you actually seen them play at this World Cup?

I absolutely cannot stand US football teams and I was certain this year would be no different, but the difference in the quality of football, the team play, the managerial tactics was night and day in comparison to US teams of the past. Usually, they play kick and rush football, whereas this time round they actually looked like a proper football teams with a game plan and skills to match.

I have watched every game. And they got to the second round.

Ask me another.

Ok... Algeria got to the second round too and they were welcomed home like heroes.

Having never done so before.

What is it you cannot comprehend?

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish.

Even as far back as '94, the USA played decent stuff.

Was that it? Really? Did Algeria's performance against Germany have nothing to do with it?

Can't remember how they played in 1994, but what I have seen at subsequent World Cups from the US team was not good football. The 2014 players were skilled, well-organised, knew what they were doing and fought to the very end. The only criticism I have is that they completely underestimated Belgium and were very ill-prepared for the last game. That's however Klinsi's fault.

That's been true of every US World Cup side since '94.

They're never the most skilful players, and this year's side is no different in that respect, but I don't recall them ever just being a team of hoofers and cloggers.

I expected USA to get out of the group, and then struggle in the last 16, they met my expectations I'm sure many thought the same. They've been a decent team for at least 10-12 years.

Nothing whatsoever.

Basically USA went down fighting in a great game vs Belguim, that they almost clawed back with a stirring fifteen minutes, they became "heroic" because of this.

Isn't that the point of the thread?

Then take it up with them

Fine. You've made your point. Why the need to keep repeating it?

No, because the comment was in response to a question addressed directly to me about the praise received by Algeria and Costa Rica in post 128.


I did, in post 131. They have yet to reply.


Because no one grasps it, you included. If you are trying to start a game of ping pong over it, don't bother, because you will come off a distinct second best.